On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> At the point in time that Vote Market was formed
> Fookiemyartug was a person (as comex had already joined). Therefore
> there were two parties to at its inception and the Vote Market
> contract was in formed correctly.
Hypothetical: When Fookiemyartug
Goethe wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
At the point in time that Vote Market was formed
Fookiemyartug was a person (as comex had already joined). Therefore
there were two parties to at its inception and the Vote Market
contract was in formed correctly.
Hypothetical: When Fooki
On Jan 15, 2008 11:33 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is the relevant timeline:
>
> Dec 14: BobTHJ and Fookiemyartug form the VM
> Dec 31: P2PP joins; Proposal 5381 revokes personhood from non-public
>contracts
> Jan 7: pikhq joins
> Jan 10: root joins
> Jan 14: root le
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Hypothetical: When Fookiemyartug ceased to be a person, did it cease
>> to be bound by the agreement? -Goethe
>
> Here is the relevant timeline:
>
> Dec 14: BobTHJ and Fookiemyartug form the VM
> Dec 31: P2PP joins; Proposal 5381 revokes personhood from
root wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 11:33 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here is the relevant timeline:
Dec 14: BobTHJ and Fookiemyartug form the VM
Dec 31: P2PP joins; Proposal 5381 revokes personhood from non-public
contracts
Jan 7: pikhq joins
Jan 10: root joins
Jan 14: root l
On Jan 15, 2008 1:41 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If only persons can be parties (question of ordinary-language
> interpretation), then Rule 1742 terminated the Vote Market on
> Dec 31. Question is, did pikhq's joining on Jan 7 back-reference
> BobTHJ's original joining on Dec 14 to
On Jan 15, 2008 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hold on thar, pardners. You need to be a person to make an agreement
> (R1742), but you don't need to be a person to *stay in* an agreement.
> After making it, you just need to remain a "party".
The legal basis around which partner
On Jan 15, 2008 2:33 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fortunately, the rules don't provide any way for a nonperson to become
> a person (other than by ceasing to exist).
That should be "for a person to become a nonperson"...
-root
On Jan 15, 2008 4:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 2:33 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Fortunately, the rules don't provide any way for a nonperson to become
> > a person (other than by ceasing to exist).
>
> That should be "for a person to become a nonper
On Jan 15, 2008 2:37 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is not true for partnerships. They can cease to devolve their
> obligations onto two people momentarily and then resume devolving the
> obligations onto two people.
Good point. I suggest that this illustrates a flaw in our d
On Monday 14 January 2008 23:24:01 Ed Murphy wrote:
> The four-day nominating period ended about 2 hours ago.
>
> BobTHJ consented to be Assessor.
>SUPPORT: me (implicitly), Wooble, OscarMeyr
>OBJECT: Zefram
>
> None of the other candidates consented to be Assessor. I hereby
> install Bo
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 2:58 AM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I initiate an Agoran Decision to resolve the holder of the CotC office.
The valid options are ZEFRAM, COMEX and MURPHY.
If there are at least 2 other votes for COMEX I vote COMEX. Otherwise
I vote MURPHY.
Bob
On Tuesday 15 January 2008 15:21:00 Levi Stephen wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 2008 7:29 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> Am I the speaker now?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> Who are the MWPs?
> >
> > Yourself, possibly Human Point Two, myself, and pikhq.
> >
> > -root
>
> If HP2
On Jan 15, 2008 3:21 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following 3 CFJs
> {{{
> Human Point Two Bears the patent title Minister Without Portfolio.
> }}}
We already have a CFJ determining this.
> {{{
> Murphy is The Speaker.
> }}}
>
> {{{
> Levi is The Speaker.
> }}}
Thes
Except that Murphy's prerogative assignment ignored me.
Ah, forgot about that.
So, either way, no MWPs have prerogatvies then.
Levi
On Jan 15, 2008 5:08 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I interpret this as meaning at the time of this message.
Conditional messages are only allowed when the rules allow them, which
is currently only with R2127 votes.
comex wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 5:08 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I interpret this as meaning at the time of this message.
Conditional messages are only allowed when the rules allow them, which
is currently only with R2127 votes.
Ok. R2127, does say that the condition is evaluate
Ian Kelly wrote:
>Good point. I suggest that this illustrates a flaw in our definition
>of "person".
I think it's a good reason why obligations ought to survive an
interruption of personhood.
-zefram
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hold on thar, pardners. You need to be a person to make an agreement
>> (R1742), but you don't need to be a person to *stay in* an agreement.
>> After making it, you just need to remain a "
On Jan 15, 2008 3:40 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> January 21, 2008 - BobTHJ obligated to deregister
The contract doesn't specify any such time frame. I'd say that as
long as you eventually deregister, you will have fulfilled this
obligation.
-root
On Jan 15, 2008 3:41 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> >Good point. I suggest that this illustrates a flaw in our definition
> >of "person".
>
> I think it's a good reason why obligations ought to survive an
> interruption of personhood.
That would be a convenient solutio
On Jan 15, 2008 3:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The legal basis around which partnerships were created was, roughly,
> > that a person is an entity upon which legal obligations can be
> > imposed.
>
> That's partnerships, but not agreements in general.
Irrelevant. We're talkin
root wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 3:40 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
January 21, 2008 - BobTHJ obligated to deregister
The contract doesn't specify any such time frame. I'd say that as
long as you eventually deregister, you will have fulfilled this
obligation.
From the VM agreement:
On Jan 15, 2008 6:23 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Finally, I do declare: we shall *not* have a briber running the courts!
Bribery? In *my* campaign?
On Jan 15, 2008 4:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From the VM agreement:
>
> "The party who posted the Sell Ticket is then obligated to take the
> action described in the Sell Ticket as soon as possible."
Ah, I missed that. There appears to be no such timing requirement for
Buy Tic
On Tuesday 15 January 2008 16:27:23 comex wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 6:23 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Finally, I do declare: we shall *not* have a briber running the courts!
>
> Bribery? In *my* campaign?
Need I remind you of your usage of the Vote Market to try to get me to
On Tuesday 15 January 2008 16:49:50 comex wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 6:36 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The Left Hand votes for Cthulhu in the CotC election.
> >
> > "Why vote for the lesser of two evils? Cthulhu, 2008."
>
> As I am the only candidate whose nickname starts with
comex wrote:
>--> From CFJ 1750 to 1800, the average time from being called to
>assignment was about 13 hours. Daunting,
As e's doing such a good job of advertising my achievements, I hereby
assign comex as my re-election campaign manager.
-zefram
This court does not accept the initiator's arguments, especially the claim
that there was no serious doubt to the judgement in question. By merit of an
appeal taking place (which requires 3 people to agree for the appeal to take
place, for an inquiry case such as CFJ 1860), there was some doubt
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 3:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The legal basis around which partnerships were created was, roughly,
>>> that a person is an entity upon which legal obligations can be
>>> imposed.
>>
>> That's partnerships, but not agree
On Jan 15, 2008 5:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, we're talking about if a partnership loses its personhood, as a
> nonperson is it still bound to other non-partnership contracts that it
> signed while a person? Or are we talking about two entirely different
> things again? -G
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Isn't that what I said?
Ok, yes, reading to fast I was. You said:
> A partnership that is not a person simply does not have, per R2150,
> "the general capacity to be the subject of rights and obligations
> under the rules". Therefore it cannot be bound b
On 1/15/08, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 6:23 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Finally, I do declare: we shall *not* have a briber running the courts!
>
> Bribery? In *my* campaign?
More likely that you'd think.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let m
On 1/15/08, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> More likely that you'd think.
DOH!
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
As a side note, I plan on finalizing my judgement on 1862 for tomorrow, and
I'll look at fixing up the Rumble contract sometime during midterms this
week,
Portion of Rule 2159/1 (Power=2)
Protective Decrees
All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,
that a documen
On Jan 15, 2008 10:24 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I nominate avpx for Mad Scientist.
>
> I nominate woggle for Tailor.
>
> I nominate Murphy for Conductor.
>
Aww. I want to be Mad Scientist.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Jan 15, 2008 10:34 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 January 2008 20:27:48 Iammars wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 2008 10:24 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I nominate avpx for Mad Scientist.
> > >
> > > I nominate woggle for Tailor.
> > >
> > > I nomi
Iammars wrote:
Since Steve Wallace is not a game, he cannot be a nomic either. Since he
is a nomic, proclaiming falsely that something is a protective decree to
him is not a violation of Rule 2159, therefore I judge FALSE.
This does not address either of the recommendations from woggle's
argu
pikhq wrote:
The role of Assessor has ceased to exist, BTW. ;)
s/Assessor/Accountor/
On Jan 15, 2008 10:37 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Iammars wrote:
>
> > Since Steve Wallace is not a game, he cannot be a nomic either. Since he
> > is a nomic, proclaiming falsely that something is a protective decree to
> > him is not a violation of Rule 2159, therefore I judge FAL
On Tuesday 15 January 2008 20:42:40 Iammars wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 10:37 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Iammars wrote:
> > > Since Steve Wallace is not a game, he cannot be a nomic either. Since
> > > he is a nomic, proclaiming falsely that something is a protective
> > > decree to
On Jan 15, 2008 10:44 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 January 2008 20:42:40 Iammars wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 2008 10:37 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Iammars wrote:
> > > > Since Steve Wallace is not a game, he cannot be a nomic either.
> Since
> > > >
On Jan 15, 2008 10:42 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah missed that conversation in my mailbox. Steve Wallace is c/o comex,
> right?
I am unrelated to the situation, besides being judge of CFJ 1828.
On Jan 15, 2008 10:51 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 10:42 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ah missed that conversation in my mailbox. Steve Wallace is c/o comex,
> > right?
>
> I am unrelated to the situation, besides being judge of CFJ 1828.
>
Yeah, I keep mixi
On Jan 15, 2008 5:54 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A partnership that is not a person simply does not have, per R2150,
> > "the general capacity to be the subject of rights and obligations
> > under the rules". Therefore it cannot be bound by a contract.
>
> The word "generally" i
On Jan 15, 2008 8:50 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Really? I only see him once in the Registrar's report, and that's when pikhq
> (sorry, not comex) tried to register him and failed. I see no e-mail for
> him.
To the best of my knowledge, pikhq has never published any contact
informatio
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Now here's a queer thing. If a partnership is has the "general
> capacity...", and it ceases to be a person, but it can still be bound
> by any and all of the same the agreements it was bound by as a person,
> then there's no reason to presume that it cou
On Jan 16, 2008 12:08 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Except, we've just changed the rules so that these CFJs no longer apply.
> It's no longer enough to retain the capacity, the partnership must be
> public. So it's no contradiction that the contract didn't change and
> is still bind
48 matches
Mail list logo
